I was sickened to read about this the other day, Having spent almost
7yrs trawling through the family courts (and still at it) I am saddened
that more and more parents will have to suffer the ordeals that I have,
with no end in sight.

The first thing that came into my mind
after reading it is that someone should organise the biggest demonstration
on the houses of parliament ever seen in this country.I for one would
be right there with my placard, telling them what I think of their review
and that lying smarmy faced sod David Camercon.

We and our
friends and families should also threathen to hit them where it really
hurts, in the ballot box.

Just moaning about it won't get us
anywhere.

"Do not believe that he who seeks to comfort you lives untroubled among the simple and quiet words that sometimes do you good. His life has much difficulty... Were it otherwise he would never have been able to find those words."

Can someone explain to me how a welfare state deals with a presumed 50/50
split of care when parents separate? I struggle to understand how we would
fund it.

A simple example as follows:

2 parents
working full time on minimum wage. 2 children, split between the pair of
them on a 50/50 basis - simple decision to split the child benefit between
them and each side gets the same tax credit top up on their minimum
salaries. All very fair until you realise that instead of one parent being
eligible for housing benefit/council housing to house themselves and two
children (2 beds, potentially 3 if children of different sexes and of an
age where they are deemed unsuitable to share), you end up with two parents
with that same eligibility at a cost to the tax payer. If both children
lived with one parent, you would get a 2/3 bed eligibility and a 1 bed
eligibility at less cost to the tax payer.

How is a judge going
to deal with the financial side of a split where the children need equal
housing with both parents and there isn't enough money to go around to
house them even with one?

What happens when the nursing
assistant marries the consultant doctor and a 50/50 split of care is
assumed upon divorce? how does the nursing assistant keep a roof over
their children's head 50% of the time if they're not eligible for full
housing allowances, tax credits etc.?

I get the need for a
presumed 50/50 of care. But I find it so hard to visualise (not sure
that's the right word?) how that works in practise when it is usually one
parent who has given up work/gone part time/taken a hit in terms of career
development, when one parent earns considerably more than the other, where
the tax payer if funding a welfare state, where despite legislation
preventing it women still earn less for doing the same job as men
etc.etc.etc. Surely with an overhaul of how it works legally, there would
need to be a corresponding overhaul of how welfare works? or by suggesting
50/50 as default, are we really saying the person who earns most 'wins' the
children?

mumtoboys wrote:Can someone
explain to me how a welfare state deals with a presumed 50/50 split of care
when parents separate? I struggle to understand how we would fund it.

A simple example as follows:

2 parents working full time
on minimum wage. 2 children, split between the pair of them on a 50/50
basis - simple decision to split the child benefit between them and each
side gets the same tax credit top up on their minimum salaries. All very
fair until you realise that instead of one parent being eligible for
housing benefit/council housing to house themselves and two children (2
beds, potentially 3 if children of different sexes and of an age where they
are deemed unsuitable to share), you end up with two parents with that same
eligibility at a cost to the tax payer. If both children lived with one
parent, you would get a 2/3 bed eligibility and a 1 bed eligibility at less
cost to the tax payer.

How is a judge going to deal with the
financial side of a split where the children need equal housing with both
parents and there isn't enough money to go around to house them even with
one?

What happens when the nursing assistant marries the
consultant doctor and a 50/50 split of care is assumed upon divorce? how
does the nursing assistant keep a roof over their children's head 50% of
the time if they're not eligible for full housing allowances, tax credits
etc.?

I get the need for a presumed 50/50 of care. But I find
it so hard to visualise (not sure that's the right word?) how that works in
practise when it is usually one parent who has given up work/gone part
time/taken a hit in terms of career development, when one parent earns
considerably more than the other, where the tax payer if funding a welfare
state, where despite legislation preventing it women still earn less for
doing the same job as men etc.etc.etc. Surely with an overhaul of how it
works legally, there would need to be a corresponding overhaul of how
welfare works? or by suggesting 50/50 as default, are we really saying the
person who earns most 'wins' the children?

Hi
MumtoboysI would immagine that having the presumed 50%50 split would
at least be a starting point before the courts would take into
consideration the circumstances of the parents.This would at least
give an equal footing to both parents instead of one of them having an
instant advantage and the other an uphill struggle from the very start.

When I split from my ex I ran my own business, a business which
allowed me to do as I pleased every day, if I didn't want to open my office
the business ran itself anyway (residential marina) while she worked a 9-6
job.

I picked my daughter up every day before her mum went to
work, looked after her all day and dropped her back when her mum came
home.this went on for nearly 3yrs until she decided to withold contact.

I am
still in the same position regarding my work although it's a different
business, I can do as I please regarding hours or days of work.I can
devote as much time to my daughter as she needs yet her mother sees her
only for a few short hours every evening, my daughter is put into an after
school club on the days I don't have
her.Why should I have to prove time and time again to social worker,
CAFCASS officers, courts etc: that I deserve more time
with my daughter and the mother needs to prove absolutely nothing.

Why can my time with my child be reduced at a whim or as the result of a
report by someone who barely know either me or my daughter when the mother
would practically need to be caught with a syringe full of heroin in her
arm and my daughter covered in bruises before these agencies would consider
cutting her contact time down?

So why shouldn't someone like me have 50%50 residence as a starting
point?Why should I be treated any differently than my ex where the
courts are concerned just because 1-I am a man and 2- because the mother is
automatically deemed "the parent with care irrespective of her employment/
financial status?

Why should I have to fight for years just to
get the 35% I have with my daughter?,

I've been/can be more of
a parent than her mother has.

"Do not believe that he who seeks to comfort you lives untroubled among the simple and quiet words that sometimes do you good. His life has much difficulty... Were it otherwise he would never have been able to find those words."

I am been Litigant in Person for the past two years for Child Contact case
against my ex-partner (my boys' father) having had legal aid. To say it is
a a disgrace at the dirty tricks of his solicitor and barrister to intimidate because I self represent, is
putting it mildly!

Acfair - I know exactly what you mean. i'm a lip[ too. Last hearing ex's
Barrister came in to where I was waiting despite me asking the usher to
tell him not to and started saying "I know you haven't got much money but
you really do need to get some representation" What an absolute T*****. My McKenzie told me later I should get
rep as I was getting ambushed. Think there are pro's and con's to being a
lip.

I was a lip in a court case in relation to my ex and his
solicitor came to me and said the same as your ex' barrister! Quite
intimidating. However, the Judge was really lovely and asked me about
myself and was really very supportive, so I represented myself at the next
hearing and again ex' solicitor came to talk to me but I told her where to
get off. And again the Judge (a different one this time) was really
supportive.